Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the
symbol in each box.

Welcome to Am I Infected

IMPORTANT UPDATE
Posted Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Welcome to the "Am I Infected?" POZ forum.

New members -- those who have posted three or fewer messages -- are permitted to post questions and responses, free of charge (make them count!). Ongoing participation in the "Am I Infected?" forum -- posting more than three questions or responses -- requires a paid subscription.

A seven-day subscription
is $9.99, a 30-day subscription is $14.99 and a 90-day subscription is $24.99.

Anyone who needs to post more than three messages in the "Am I Infected?" forum -- including past, present and future POZ Forums members -- will need to subscribe, with
secure payments made via PayPal.

There will be no charge to continue reading threads in the
"Am I Infected?" forum, nor will there be a charge for participating
in any of the Main Forums; Meds, Mind, Body & Benefits; and Off Topic
Forums. Similarly, all POZ and AIDSmeds pages,
including our "How is HIV
Transmitted?" and "Am I Infected? (A
Guide to Testing for HIV)" lessons, will remain accessible to
all.

NOTE: HIV testing questions will still need to be posted in the "Am I
Infected?" forum; attempts to post HIV symptoms or testing questions in any other forums will be considered violations of our rules of membership and subject to time-outs and permanent bans.

To learn how to upgrade your Forums account
to participate beyond three posts in the "Am I Infected?" Forum, please click here.

Thank you for your understanding
and future support of the best online support service for people living with,
affected by and at risk for HIV.

Author
Topic: Here again, another oral question (Read 14232 times)

I posted a while ago and since the change of design on the forum, I just have a quick question.

In your lessons section, you state that even though its not documented and that it would not be easy to do, you could get hiv from being the insertive partner during oral. But all of you adimetly say that you can't and that none of us will be the first. Can you talk about the discrepency and what you know that is not in the lessons section?

After I tested negative following six months after getting a bj from a guy. I met a friend and we started hanging out. He gave me a bj and now I am worried again that I need to be tested. We did not do anything other than that except for kissing.

I personally disagree with the LESSONS section regarding theoretical risks such as insertive oral. I tend to trust first tier peer-reviewed quantifiable scientific data, and I believe it was an unfortunate concession to the CDC and perhaps even POZ.com that caused insertive oral to be listed as even a theoretical risk. The three serodiscordant studies are extraordinarily compelling, and I am far more inclined to trust that quantifiable data than any unquantified theories or the notoriously unreliable patient self-report.

I am not at all a fan of theoretical risk. I find it to be a way of saying "there is no data to support this conclusion" without admitting such. It is speculation, and has no place in hard science. At 25 years into the pandemic, the vectors of HIV transmission have seriously narrowed, and the science has grown from the anecdotal to the quantifiable.

My HIV risk assessment is based on tangible data. However, intangible data is still used to a degree in many HIV sites. This site seems to rely on it the least, which is why I am here.

I am confident that as more data materializes, the LESSONS section will reflect this. We are, after all, a dynamic site and not a static one.

You do not get HIV from insertive oral. I am sorry that this site did not sufficiently allay that unfounded fear. Saliva is not infectious. Other STDs? Yes. HIV? No.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

Thanks for your quick response. My only quick question would be, what if i had a small, very, very small scrape on me from a couple days before...and if he had brushed his teeth...is it possible for transmission that way or am I just crazy nervous about this??? LOL

Well, thats the thing about theoretical risk. Never has HIV been documented to have been passed through this vector, and hundreds of serodiscordant couples perform unprotected oral sex on one another without a single infection.

What if? Your quess is as good as mine, provided that you realize you are speculating in the world of fantasy. Will I maintain that it's patently impossible, under the most extreme circumstances, to acquire HIV through insertive oral? Perhaps if a person with profusely bleeding mouth, maybe during a sexual assault, bits off the penis that is thrust into that mouth, an infection might be possible. However, to date, no one has ever reported such an infection - and rape, even violent rape- is not as rare as all that.

No risk. No need to test. Seriously. And I will continue to fight for the elimination of theoretical risk from the otherwise sound science-based LESSONS section, to help this site maintain it's well-deserved credibility.

Because if insertive oral is a theoretical risk, so is Kissing. So is mutual masturbation. So is rimming. So is fingering. And I simply don't agree, and neither does the data.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

You were told repeatedly in your thread in the old forum that getting a blowjob just doesn't happen in the real world.

If you read the lessons carefully, you would have also read the bit about getting hit by meteorites that is meant to put the whole thing into perspective. Do you worry about being squashed by a meteorite every time you leave your house?

Quote

Here's a good way to think about theoretical risk: In theory, it is possible that while walking down the street, a meteor will fall on your head and kill you instantly. This is because meteors do occasionally fall to earth. People live their lives above ground, so there is a theoretical risk of being hit be a meteor. In fact, there have been reports of a few people being hit by meteors. But because the risk is so small, given that few meteors fall to earth and the large number of inhabitants of this planet, the risk is purely theoretical. The same principle holds true with oral sex  millions of people all over the world are believed to engage in unprotected oral sex and there have only been a handful of documented cases of HIV transmission. In turn, fellatio, and other types of oral sex (see below), remains a theoretical risk for HIV infection.

The "handful" of documented hiv transmission cases via oral were not concerning the receptive partner. Getting a blowjob is not a real risk of hiv infection no matter what sort of spin you want to put on it. Not one person has ever become infected in this way and you will NOT be the first.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

If you're having that much trouble letting go of something that was no risk to begin with and that you have several conclusive negative results for, then perhaps it's time for you to do something constructive about it.

Please seek some face-to-face help and support in the form of counseling. You don't have to live with this crushing anxiety over something that never even put you in danger in the first place.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

If you keep searching for quasi-information to feed your fears I can guarantee that you will find plenty.

But the real deal is that after 25 years and counting in the epidemic and billions of blowjobs later, even the handful of so-called "documented cases" of transmission in that manner are highly quesitonable. What we do have as Jonathan has pointed out are the results of three extensive and longrange studies with sero-dystonic partners from which the data supports no risk via oral performed on sero-positive partners. And personally I have known sero-dystonic partners for whom oral is a part of their sex life and no one's gotten infected.

If you have bleeding gums it would probably be a good idea to get periodentic treatment as poor oral care is sometimes cited as possible means of transmission.

Overall giving oral falls into the category of what is your comfort zone. If you're going to make yourself nuts and nervous everytime you suck a dick, then use condoms.

And stop surfing the net. If you want a 100% guarantee of safety you have picked the wrong epidemic and the wrong world.

No risk = no need to test. While you do not need to test over this specific incident, anyone who is sexually active should be having a full sexual health care check-up, including but not limited to hiv testing, at least once a year and more often if unprotected intercourse occurs. You don't need to test again until a year has passed since your last test, unless of course you engage in unprotected intercourse in the meantime... but you're not going to do that, are you.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

This is more of an opinion for the folks on here. Why do you think that resources like the CDC and others say that there is a risk for insertive oral? I had called and spoken with a rep and they said its just as risky as receptive oral and that anyone who has done this should be tested in three months.

What's missing from this site is suppositions, inclinations, extrapolated theories, and knee-jerk best guess responses. All we have to offer here is first tier, peer-reviewed scientific fact. Surf the web all you want, you'll eventually find someone who'll tell you hiv is the result of alien abductions.

Hi all. I know that I have been told over and over that you cannot get hiv from recieving a bj based on 20 years of studies. My question is about 5.5 weeks ago, I got a bj from my friend. He said he is hiv neg, but I know its everyones responsability to test for themselves. i believe that I had a very tiny cut on my penis. I don't know if he had blood in his mouth. The other thing we did was grind on each other. not sure if he had pre or not that rubbed on that possible cut.

About two weeks ago, i had a small irratation in my left armpit - i could not tell if it was a lump or not, but hurt for about two days. Now two weeks later, I have the same type of thing in my right armpit and hurts and seems like it would be near a lymph node. its going away. I have not had a fever that i am aware of and no other symptoms.

Since I had this happen, is it possible that I contracted hiv and should go get a test at three months?

The only sexual way you would be at risk for hiv infection is if you've been having unprotected anal or vaginal intercourse. Even GIVING a blowjob is not likely to result in hiv infection.

You can choose to believe the science or you can continue to freak out every time you do anything of a sexual nature. I would suggest that you seek the assistance of a mental health care professional to help you deal with your sex related anxieties. We cannot help you with that here, you must get some face-to-face help and support.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

But Ann my question is that were those or were those not symptoms that i experienced...the irratation and slight two day pain in each armpit...about two weeks apart. It just seems like no coincidence that they happend between the 4-6 week period you would experience ars.

You are right - I feel I need help. I really liked this guy and thought that just kissing and getting a bj would not have affected me the way it has.

I got a bj 10 weeks ago and I have had nearly all of the possible syptoms listed all over the web(some very unpleasant including burning and numb feet and legs and a nasty pain in my chest that hurts when I swallow). These guys say no risk so therefore until we get our results we have to believe no risk.... I know it's hard because every little problem that occurs has to be HIV related.

You are not alone mate, just beleive and have hope and then get tested!

I have spoken to many experts on this subject and the answers vary from no risk to same as any other insertive risk! Even in the same organisation such as the Terrence Higgins Trust I have had 1 person say no risk and another say low risk, I must say the one that said no risk came across as knowing her subject extremely well and was totally convincing.

At least here they have principles based on scientific results and not hear say and speculation, that is why I find the views here so compelling. I trust their judgement and hope and pray that they and the science is right.

I just have another quick question for anyone...how do you know if your lymph nodes are swollen? is it noticable? Can you feel them? Are they hard? small? do they hurt? Would the skin near them be irratated?

But i am asking how do you know if they are swollen? I don't have insurance yet, i just started at a new job. If they are swollen, then I would assume that I should try to get some money together some way or put it on a cc.

Would more than one lymph node be swollen if you were going through ars...like in my neck and my armpits? I know i had no risk of infection, I am just asking. Would you only have swollen glands or do you have more than one symptom?

There is no point in discussing symptoms with you as symptoms or the lack of symptoms mean absolutely nothing when it comes to hiv infection.

Keep your hands off your lymph nodes. The easily get irritated and swollen when you constantly touch, poke, prod and otherwise interfer with them. If you are worried about your lymph glands, you'll have to see a doctor. We cannot diagnose you over the internet.

Anyone who continues to post excessively, questioning a conclusive negative result or no-risk situation, will be subject to a four week Time Out (a temporary ban from the Forums). The purpose of a Time Out is to encourage you to seek the face-to-face help we cannot provide on this forum.

If you continue to post over this no-risk incident, I will have no choice but to give you a time-out. Please consider yourself warned.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Ann one more question before you lock me out. I know everyone says this is a no-risk incident, but can you explain to me why if someone had blood (a body fluid that transmits the virus) in their mouth from flossing or whatever and then gave someone a bj who might have had a small cut from the day before why transmission could not take place.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

I am sure I will get banned by asking this, but I think its a valid question and one that I have been thinking about...

Many of the experts on this site say that "no one has ever gotten hiv from getting a bj, and you won't be the first". Is it possible that after the "trillions" (as Andy says) of bjs that have happened, that someone could have been infected by getting a bj, but also had unprotected intercourse -- so what I am saying is that the person would not necessarily know that they were infected from the bj since the intercourse is high risk. Does this make sense? I am not trying to stir anything up or scare anyone, i am just sitting here wondering about this.

Please, please, please do not be nasty to me. it is an inquiry. nothing more, nothing less.

Cup, if you want to get tested for receiving a blowjob, go get tested. You are not going to be the first person that went and tested for just receiving a blowjob and you won't be the last. It's your dollar.

What about all those people who had blowjobs but DIDN'T have unprotected intercourse? Not one of THEM became infected with hiv so there is no reason to believe that someone who got blowjobs and also had unprotected intercourse became positive through anything BUT the unprotected intercourse.

Why don't you just go get tested, collect your negative result and move on with your life? You did NOT have a risk of hiv infection through getting a blowjob.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Again you're bringing up the theoretical scenario's. You're again reminded of the meteorite hitting earth, certainly someone was killed in this manner - so should you not leave your house, just in case?

You need to realize the problem you're having in regards to all of this is psychological not physical. As everyone has said, go get tested to reassure yourself you're negative. Why don't you start wearing condoms for oral sex if you're truly concerned about the risk!

It would be wise to seek the assistance of a mental health professional if this issue causes you unnecessary anxiety and stress.

Yep me again...and I am going to go have a test at three months (which is in about two weeks). This site tells me that its impossible to be infected by getting a bj - but obviously there are cases...like in the living with forum someone stated that is all he did and that is how he was infected.

Below is the excerpt from the CDC website...doctors and scientists who work with hiv everyday: "Yes, it is possible for you to become infected with HIV through receiving oral sex. If your partner has HIV, blood from their mouth may enter the urethra (the opening at the tip of the penis), the vagina, the anus, or directly into the body through small cuts or open sores. While no one knows exactly what the degree of risk is, evidence suggests that the risk is less than that of unprotected anal or vaginal sex."

I am sure i will be banned, but I think its terrible to tell people there is absolutly, 100% no chance that people can get infected through this manor.

However, rereading your posts in the old forum makes me realize that my time, as regards HIV risk assessment in your particular case, has been wasted. I respectfully disengage.

« Last Edit: August 07, 2006, 08:51:04 AM by jkinatl2 »

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

Thank you for your response. I think that one thing that is frustrating to people like myself that come here looking for help is that you get angry and upset with us when we try to tell you "our story". They are all different and I think its easy for you to do a "one size fits all" answer by saying, no matter what spin you put on it, you will NOT get hiv from getting a bj.

I appriciate you taking the time to post these studies...but in the real world don't you think its possible for it to happen?

I appriciate you taking the time to post these studies...but in the real world don't you think its possible for it to happen?

My opinion? No. I do not.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

It is very frustrating when people don´t seem to be ready to learn or accept well proven scientific knowledge.

I have tried it with statistic but then people try to misinterpret the statistic.

Then I have tried it with common sense. I have learned that in state of panic or fear, common sense very often is absent.

Then I have tried it with first peer reviewed studies. People don´t seem to read the obvious but are looking for the execption of the rule.

All with very limited success. Somehow some people are what I call "learning resistant".

When you question everything what´s told here, ask yourself why you are here. If you are not happy with whatsthe answers here, you are free to move on. However I must tell you that medhelp.org and others have similar opinions.

Fact is, nothing in the world is absolute. But statistically and scientifically the chance can be as close to zero as it can get.

If we would say that the chance of infection of insertive oral is as close to zero as it can get, some people would insist that there is a tiny margin between zero and as close to zero as it can get, and then soon after, there are anecdotal stories to fuel their fears.

Medicine, like many other sciences, isn´t 100% exact. You need to understand this. But then again the probability may be very very low of something can happen.

If after several thousand of bj no infection took place, it safely can be stated that there is no real life chance to acquire HIV through this vector.

Regards

Darkfiber

BTW. All the time I have visited this board (2 1/2) years, the answers of the likes of Jkinatl2, Rapidrod, Ann or Andy Velez have been spot on and never been wrong in risk assumptions....If there was a risk it was told and unfortunately sometimes infection was reality. Not even once a infection was reported after the risk was said to be minimal or non-existant.

I posted this in your old thread. It bears repeating here, not because I believe that the original poster will read it, but for others who are reading this thread and who need to be reminded that our risk assessment is grounded in first-tiered peer-reviewed science, as well as the epidemiology. This is also a repost, so anyone whose read it already, apologies:

All three studies show zero infections over 3,5, and 10 years.This is despite an estimated 19,000 unprotected exposures, of which an estimated 17,000 resulted in ejaculation into the receptive partner’s oral cavity.

Page-Shafer K et al. Risk of infection attributable to oral sex among men who have sex with men and in the population of men who have sex with men. AIDS 16, 17, 2350 – 2352, 2002 (an abstract of both these studies is below).

Myself, I give more weight to first-tiered peer reviewed studies, preferably published, preferably repeated by independent researchers. Anecdotal cases are simply reports by doctors who may or may not have an intimate understanding or knowledge of their patient, and may or may not utilize the most rudimentary investigational techniques (such as interviewing the partner(s), repeat interviews, et al). Like I keep saying, the plural of anecdotwe is not data.

That isnt a "blanket" answer put forth by robots. It is a carefully considered response based on science, statistical analysis, and the cumulative investigation of this pandemic for about 25 years. Many doctors say many things. Many doctors put on gloves before they shake an HIV positive person's hand. Many doctors like getting published. Many doctors have given false or misleading information on the topic of HIV because infectious disease is a small portion of their body of knowledge - and you know what they say about a little knowledge - couple that with a big ego and you have people authoritatively spouting off about stuff they know a fraction about.

Here are the links to the case studies which indicate saliva's multiple HIV inhibiting capabilities.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to test S-IgA purified from secretions of HIV seropositive patients in a neutralization assay to determine whether specific S-I&A can protect from HIV infection.

CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that secretory IgA, which is the predominant isotype in secretions, can inhibit HIVMN infection of MT4 cells. HIV neutralization has been carried out with CD4+ T cell line adapted virus strain as a standardized model system, but the use of mucosal autologous primary isolates in neutralization test would be useful to estimate the actual protective effect of these antibodies in each patient.

BACKGROUND: Incubation of HIV-1 with human saliva decreases infectivity. This inhibition is specific for HIV-1, with no effect on adenovirus, HIV-2 or SIV and appears to work at the level of the virus rather than the host cell. We have now identified an active protein fraction and provide evidence that the mechanism of action involves stripping of gp120 from the virus.

CONCLUSION: The specific inhibition of HIV-1 infectivity by human submandibular saliva is associated with removal of gp120 from the virus. The active fraction contains several proteins, including two high molecular weight glycoproteins.

Human submandibular saliva contains factors that reduces HIV-1 infectivity in vitro. The mechanism of action of these salivary proteins is unknown. We asked if salivary proteins act at the level of the virus or, instead, on the host cell. Monoclonal antibodies were used to detect cell surface receptors (CD3, CD4, CD7, HLA-DR, LFA-1, and LFA2) on peripheral blood derived mononuclear cells (PBMCs) treated with media or saliva. Our results show that saliva did not block these receptors nor lower the intensity of detection. PBMCs pretreated with saliva showed no inhibition when subsequently infected with HIV-1HxB2. These results suggest that saliva does not exhibit anti-viral activity by modifying the host cell. Saliva did not block binding of gp120 to CD4 nor did it lyse the virus. Incubation of HIV with submandibular saliva did lead to viral aggregation. Virus-saliva aggregates were subjected to centrifugation on a 10-60% sucrose gradient, fractionated and assayed for p24 antigen. The HIV-saliva complex sediments at a higher density compared with virus alone. Analysis of the gradient fractions for gp120 shows that the env protein is displaced from the virion. These results suggest that one mechanism of salivary anti-HIV activity involves removal of gp120 thereby decreasing HIV infectivity. This work was supported by NIH grants DE09569 and RR00040.

continued below-

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

Abstract: We analysed a cohort of heterosexual HIV- serodiscordant couples with the aim of evaluating the risk of transmission ascribed to unprotected orogenital intercourse. A total of 135 seronegative individuals (110 women and 25 men), whose only risk exposure to HIV was unprotected orogenital sex with their infected partner, registered 210 person-years of follow-up. After an estimated total of over 19,000 unprotected orogenital exposures with the infected partner not a single HIV seroconversion occurred.

Page-Shafer K, Shiboski CH, Osmond DH, Dilley J, McFarland W, Shiboski SC, Klausner JD, Balls J, Greenspan D, Greenspan JS. Risk of HIV infection attributable to oral sex among men who have sex with men and in the population of men who have sex with men. AIDS. 2002 Nov;16(17):2350-2[PubMed ID: 12441814]

Abstract: We examined HIV infection and estimated the population-attributable risk percentage (PAR%) for HIV associated fellatio among men who have sex with other men (MSM). Among 239 MSM who practised exclusively fellatio in the past 6 months, 50% had three partners, 98% unprotected; and 28% had an HIV-positive partner; no HIV was detected. PAR%, based on the number of fellatio partners, ranges from 0.10% for one partner to 0.31% for three partners. The risk of HIV attributable to fellatio is extremely low.

Here is an article from aegis:

Scientists have discovered why it's difficult (though not impossible) to catch HIV through oral sex. The discovery could lead to new ways of defending the body against infection through sexual intercourse.

The body has an arsenal of virus-fighting chemicals called defensins that inhabit the mucous membranes lining our various orifices -- mouth, nose, rectum, vagina, etc. These chemicals are called human beta-defensins (hBDs). The body normally only calls them into action when the cells lining the membranes (called epithelial cells) are injured.

The mouth, however -- perhaps because it's usually the first port of call for most foreign substances -- has a permanently high level of defensins, and researchers have found that this permanent state of "Amber alert" is stimulated by the presence of oral bacteria, which cause the mouth to secrete hBDs.

Researcher Dr. Aaron Weinberg of Case Western University in Cleveland, Ohio said: "In the mouth, [defensins] are permanently induced above baseline levels. We've discovered that there are certain organisms unique to the oral cavity that have the ability to induce them."

The high level of hBDs in the mouth mean that it is easy for the body to switch to "red alert" when it is invaded by a germ it doesn't recognize -- including HIV.

Dr. Weinberg's team found that oral epithelial cells secreted four to 78 times the normal amount of oral defensins when HIV was introduced into the test tube with them.

"These beta defensins, once induced, have anti-retroviral activity," Dr. Weinberg said. "HIV failed to infect these cells, even after five days of exposure. We have a hunch that the oral cavity is therefore uniquely resistant to HIV infectivity."

The defensins appear to work not by directly attacking HIV but by temporarily "locking the doors" the virus uses to get into cells -- they stop it attaching itself to the "co-receptor" molecule called CXCR4 that normally dots the surface of epithelial cells.

This discovery may explain why it is so difficult to get HIV orally. It may also point the way to inducing the same kind of immune response in other body cavities. Dr. Weinberg said: "If we can isolate the organisms from the oral cavity that induce beta-defensins ... and apply them to the susceptible sites, we can artificially induce hBDs to be produced under normal conditions, which would then prevent HIV infection."

The concept is similar to one already explored using genetically modified bacteria to secrete antiviral chemicals (see http://uk.gay.com/article/hiv/prevention/2154), but in this case the bacteria used would be ones that normally live in the body.

Background Oral transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by the millions of HIV-infected individuals is a rare event, even when infected blood and exudate is present. Saliva of viremic individuals usually contains only noninfectious components of HIV indicating virus breakdown.

Objective To determine whether unknown HIV inhibitory mechanisms may explain the almost complete absence of infectious HIV in the saliva.

Methods Since most of the infectious HIV that is shed mucosally by asymptomatic individuals is found in, produced by, and transmitted by infected mononuclear leukocytes, we determined whether saliva, which is hypotonic, may disrupt these infected cells, thereby preventing virus multiplication and cell-to-cell transmission of HIV. Specifically, we measured (1) whether mononuclear leukocytes were lysed by saliva and (2) whether the lysis by saliva inhibits the multiplication of HIV and other viruses in infected leukocytes and other cells.

Results Saliva rapidly disrupted 90% or more of blood mononuclear leukocytes and other cultured cells. Concomitantly, there was a 10,000-fold or higher inhibition of the multiplication of HIV and surrogate viruses. Further experiments indicated that the cell disruption is due to the hypotonicity of saliva.

Conclusions Hypotonic disruption may be a major mechanism by which saliva kills infected mononuclear leukocytes and prevents their attachment to mucosal epithelial cells and production of infectious HIV, thereby preventing transmission. Implications for the known oral HIV transmission by milk and seminal fluid, as well as potential oral transmission to contacts and health care workers, are considered. This effective salivary defense may be applicable medically to interdict vaginal, rectal, and oral transmission of HIV by infected cells in seminal fluid or milk by the use of anticellular substances.

Department of Periodontics and Oral Biology, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the molecular nature, spectrum of activity and mechanism(s) of action of those human parotid basic proline-rich proteins that exhibit anti-HIV-I activity. DESIGN: Fractions containing the basic proline-rich proteins were obtained from human parotid saliva of presumed HIV-I non-infected human subjects and characterized with respect to their purity, apparent molecular size and their ability to inhibit the infectivity of T-tropic and M-tropic strains of HIV-I. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS AND METHODS: Stimulated parotid saliva samples were collected from human subjects who denied having any risk factors for HIV-I infection and whose parotid salivas inhibited HIV-I infectivity. Such samples were subjected to affinity, molecular sieve and ion exchange chromatography to isolate individual salivary components. Those fractions demonstrating anti-HIV-I activity were analyzed by SDS-PAGE in order to assess their purity and determine their apparent molecular weights. HIV-I inhibitory activity was determined using HIV-I strains LAI and BaL in a Hela cell-derived multinuclear activation of a galactosidase indicator (MAGI) assay. Amino acid analyses were performed on some fractions. RESULTS: Recombinant gp120-CH-Sepharose chromatography of one subject's parotid saliva revealed specific binding of human parotid basic proline-rich proteins, most prominently one with an apparent molecular weight of 37 kDa. Molecular sieve and cation exchange chromatography yielded a fraction greatly enriched in this protein which amino acid analysis confirmed was proline-rich. A similar fraction from two other subjects also contained basic proline-rich proteins of similar molecular size. These fractions inhibited both T-tropic and M-tropic strains of HIV-I when assayed in the MAGI system. Since SLPI activity is not observable in the MAGI assay, this inhibition was not due to SLPI. The presence of thrombospondin-I (TSP-I) in the active fractions was precluded on the basis of SDS-PAGE examination. CONCLUSIONS: Specific basic proline-rich proteins in human parotid saliva possess significant anti-HIV-I activity independent of that attributable to SLPI or TSP-I. Since the inhibition is detectable with the MAGI assay, its mechanism of action involves virus-host cell interaction prior to the introduction of the tat gene product into the host cell and may be through the binding of the basic proline-rich proteins to the HIV-I gp120 coat of the virus.

STUDY SHOWS COMPONENT OF SALIVA IS VERY EFFECTIVE IN BLOCKING AIDS VIRUS

Potential for Use In Preventing Sexual Transmission of HIV

New York, NY (January 7, 1998) -- Research conducted at The New York Hospital-Cornell University Medical College has found that a natural component of human saliva has a very powerful effect in blocking the growth of laboratory strains of HIV as well as AIDS viruses taken directly from patients. This finding could lead to the development of natural inhibitors to HIV transmission. In a study published in the January 5 issue of the Journal of Experimental Medicine, Dr. Jeffrey Laurence, Director of the Laboratory for AIDS Virus Research; Dr. Ralph Nachman, Chairman of the Department of Medicine; Dr. Roy L. Silverstein, Chief of the Division of Hematology-Oncology; and a team of biomedical scientists describe how they have identified a natural sugar-protein, concentrated in saliva, known as TSP (thrombospondin), and discovered its remarkable ability to block the growth of the AIDS virus. Recognizing that over the past years several labs have found a variety of substances in human saliva that partially inhibit the growth of HIV, Dr. Laurence and his research team delved further into this phenomenon.

Dr. Laurence said, "We began by exploring why there is so little HIV virus in saliva, while large amounts of the virus are found in other body fluids; and why human saliva is so effective at blocking the growth of the AIDS virus in the test tube. This led us to the discovery of TSP." According to Dr. Laurence, "We made the observation that thrombospondin type 1 (TSP-1) can block HIV-1 infection of primary human cells and transform human cell lines of T lymphocyte and monocyte lineages. TSP is effective against both laboratory-adapted strains of HIV-1 and HIV-1 patient isolates. It is active at physiologic concentrations. Saliva experiments indicate that TSP-1 is a major component of the natural HIV inhibitory capacity of saliva." TSP is of particular interest as a natural inhibitor, as others have shown that it may promote wound healing, and suppression of some bacterial infections. Higher levels of TSP in the saliva of some male, as opposed to female, animals may relate to the more frequent wounding of male animals. Wound licking, with application of saliva molecules that could inhibit infection, would then be very beneficial. Speaking of the application of this research, Dr. Nachman said, "This is an exciting finding that is another step forward in our research efforts aimed at preventing AIDS transmission. TSP derivatives could potentially be used vaginally, rectally and orally in condoms, foams, suppositories, mouthwashes and toothpastes to inhibit transmission of the AIDS virus."

While TSP is a very large molecule that would be unwieldy to use directly in patients, the Cornell research team also investigated the mechanism of action of TSP. They found that peptides -- small pieces of the larger TSP -- could block binding of the AIDS virus to its receptor on immune cells. This offers the potential for direct use of these smaller molecules to prevent sexual transmission of HIV. Funding for this work was provided by the Dental, Heart/Lung/Blood, and Allergy/Immunology Institutes of the NIH.

Salivary HIV-1 InhibitorsP.I.: Murray R. Robinovitch, Professor and Chairman, Department of Oral Biology, School of Dentistry, University of Washington

The specific aims of this study are to identify, isolate and characterize those non-immunoglobulin components of saliva that inhibit HIV-l infectivity and to elucidate their mechanisms of action. We found that adapted the multinuclear activation of a galactosidase indicator assay (MAGI) and the secretory leukocyte protease inhibitor assay (SLPI) for use in the studies. Of seven chromatographically separated components of saliva, those containing non-glycosylated basic proine-rich proteins inhibited HIV-l from 20 to 80% at protein concentrations within physiologic range. The fractions were inhibitory using both assays. The site of action appears to be prior to or at the site of viral entry into the cell rather than later in the infection process.

The modes of transmission of human acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) are still not completely understood even though bodily fluids such as blood and semen of infected subjects are regarded as extremely hazardous. Other human secretions such as milk and saliva have been reported to contain inhibitors of HIV-1 infectivity and it is now known that saliva may contain non-immunoglobulin inhibitors as well as secretory immunoglobulins if the subject is infected with HIV. The degree to which a non-infected persons saliva may be protective against HIV-1 infection via the oral route, and the degree to which the non-immunoglobulin factors and antibodies in an infected subject_s saliva may lessen the biohazard of this secretion is not known. Such information is vital from a public health point of view, and is also extremely important to the practice of dentistry. With such information, better advice can be offered to the public on how to contain AIDS, and to the profession of dentistry on how to design office practices and procedures

Am I prepared to say that giving a blow job carries zero risk? I am not. Several prominent safer sex educators, including Kimberly Page Shafer and her colleagues from the University of California at San Francisco, who conducted one of the long term San Fransisco studies, however disagree.

<<Dr. Jeffrey Klausner, who heads the sexually transmitted disease prevention effort at the San Francisco Department of Public Health, bases his conclusion on a new study of 239 gay or bisexual men who reported no anal or vaginal sex and no injection-drug use in the prior six months. Ninety-eight percent said they had given head without condoms. Twenty-eight percent said they knew their partner was HIV-positive, and of those, 39 percent said they had swallowed semen. None of the men became infected.

Of course there are people who disagree with the assertions and the studies. But so far, the epidemiological data is sound. The arguments ALL stem from anecdotal data (I have four friends who claim to have been infected through oral sex). And though I know it pisses people off to the tune of "You callin' me a liar?" I simply do not accept anecdotal evidence as having anywhere near the same weight as these long term studies - the first of their kind, since before the romero and shafer studies, all we had to go on was patient report post-infection. And study after study concludes that patient report is notoriously unreliable:

<< Typical studies of sexual behavior have been flawed in two important ways. First, there are many instances of biased sampling that limit the degree to which data can be generalized. Studies either focus upon only limited age groups (Oliver & Hyde, 1993), do not obtain random samples, or do not control for volunteer bias (Michael, Gagnon, Laumann, & Kolata, 1994). ...

The second typical flaw of sex research is that the majority of data is taken from self-reports of sexual behavior. Oliver & Hyde (1993) noted the prevalence of self-report studies of sexual behavior in their recent meta-analytic review. This is common practice in social research, where actual behaviors cannot be observed. However, the validity of self-reports must be questioned, especially if the information asked for is "sensitive, potentially incriminating, or embarrassing." (Akers, Massey, Clarke, & Lauer, 1983, p.234 ). Participants may perceive that they deviate from a social norm and may misrepresent their behavior so as to appear more like the norm (Akers, Massey, Clarke, & Lauer, 1983; Arkin & Lake, 1983; Campanelli, Dielman, & Shope, 1987; Cohen & Shotland, 1996; Gaes, Quigley-Fernandez, & Tedeschi, 1978; Hansen, Malotte, & Fielding, 1985). This makes data collected from self-report studies untrustworthy and has the secondary effect of perpetuating a false norm.From: Gender Differences in Sexual Behavior Examined Using a Bogus Pipeline by Jason Marbutthttp://bespin.stwing.upenn.edu/~upsych/Perspectives/1999/marbutt.htm>>

Abstract: To determine the truthfulness of patients' and research subjects' self-reports of their sexual and drug use histories in studies of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) risk factors, studies of or pertinent to lying about AIDS risk factors were extracted from MEDLINE and PSYCLIT. The present paper describes normal and pathological motives for misrepresenting risk factors, and reviews the literature on such underreporting. There is much evidence for lying about anal intercourse and intravenous drug use risk factors, implying that the estimates of risk for vaginal transmission of HIV (particularly in Pattern-I industrialized countries) have been inflated. Research on HIV/AIDS behavioral risk factors must include sophisticated methods for the assessment of self-report validity, such as the use of behavioral markers, improved lie scales and interview methods, and physical methods.>>

The overwhelming preponderance of evidence suggests that insertive oral sex poses as close to zero HIV risk as medical science allows, and that the risk of receptive oral sex is exceedingly, vanishingly low.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

Without having a hundred people attack - was curious. Is it possible to have ARS symptoms 11 weeks after a possible exposure? I know these are unreliable, but want to know.

yes, i have two more weeks until i hit thirteen weeks since I got a bj. I will be going in to get tested.

Also, it seems like people are coming out of the woodwork on the other forums to discuss the fact that they were infected by kissing, oral, etc. Nothing is 100%.

I also want to thank everyone on here - i have met some great people for support through emails and messages. This has really helped me get through this really scary time in my life. I know many of you dismiss my fear, but it is a fear.

Also, it seems like people are coming out of the woodwork on the other forums to discuss the fact that they were infected by kissing, oral, etc. Nothing is 100%.

Especially not the capacity for people to deceive themselves, and others.

You simply do not get HIV from kissing or insertive oral sex.

But enjoy the remainder of your unnecessary window period, and inevitable negative test.

I respectfully withdraw.

« Last Edit: August 10, 2006, 11:03:23 AM by jkinatl2 »

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

Thanks jkinatl2 - i appciate all the articles you sent to me and posted. i do. i know that you and others just think people like i am crazy. i am not...but for some reason, i cannot get over this fear. Everytime i think I have a hold of the fear, something like a swollen lymph node or sore throat or bad headache its. Like this week, i hve this weird bump on the back of my neck, right int he center a little above the hairline (TMI I know), so right away i think its ars.

I hope you are all right about the risk.

What did you mean by this 'Especially not the capacity for people to deceive themselves, and others."

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts